Why Are Men So Violent?

It will not have gone unnoticed that men are more violent than women. Men perpetrate about 90 percent of the world's homicides and start all of the wars. But why? A recent article in a prominent science journal contends that evolution has shaped men to be warriors. More specifically, the authors claim that men are biologically programmed to form coalitions that aggress against neighbors, and they do so in order to get women, either through force or by procuring resources that would make them more desirable. The male warrior hypothesis is alluring because it makes sense of male violence, but it is based on a dubious interpretation of the science. In my new book, I point out that such evolutionary explanations of behavior are often worse than competing historical explanations. The same is true in this case. There are simpler historical explanations of male violence, and understanding these is important for coping with the problem.

A historical explanation of male violence does not eschew biological factors, but it minimizes them and assumes that men and woman are psychologically similar. Consider the biological fact that men have more upper-body strength than women, and assume that both men and women want to obtain as many desirable resources as they can. In hunter-gatherer societies, this strength differential doesn't allow men to fully dominate women, because they depend on the food that women gather. But things change with the advent of intensive agriculture and herding. Strength gives men an advantage over women once heavy ploughs and large animals become central aspects of food production. With this, men become the sole providers, and women start to depend on men economically. The economic dependency allows men to mistreat women, to philander, and to take over labor markets and political institutions. Once men have absolute power, they are reluctant to give it up. It took two world wars and a post-industrial economy for women to obtain basic opportunities and rights.

This historical story can help to explain why men are more violent than women. The men who hold power will fight to keep it, and men who find themselves without economic resources feel entitled to acquire things by force if they see no other way. With these assumptions, we can dispense with the male warrior hypothesis, which is advanced by Melissa McDonald, Carlos Navarrete, and Mark Van Vugt, in the latest issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. These three psychologists imply that male violence is natural and inevitable, but all the evidence they offer can be explained by the simpler assumption that farming technologies allowed men co-opt power over the course of human history.

The authors claim that men are more xenophobic than women, because they are wired to wage war. But this is also predicted on the historical account, because men control governments and handle foreign relations. It follows too that men start all wars.

The authors contend that, compared to women, men prefer social dominance hierarchies, which testifies to their innately competitive nature. But this is easily explained on the social story: in male dominant societies, men gain from dominance hierarchies, and women lose.

The authors note that men are more prone to cooperate when under threat than otherwise, which may suggest an instinct to form armies. But a simpler explanation is that, having obtained power, men are reluctant to cooperate except under pressure.

The authors cite a disturbing study in which men endorse war after being primed with a picture of an attractive woman, which suggests that male violence has a sexual motive. But the link between sex and violence may derive from the fact that sex is often coercive in male dominant societies.

The authors link the male warrior hypothesis to racism: white men, they say, show greater fear responses to pictures of black men, than do white women. But this is difficult to explain on any evolutionary hypothesis, since there would have been little ethnic diversity in our ancestral past. Racism is more readily linked to the social history of slavery, an industry run by men.

The authors also remark that women become more racist at times of peak fertility, suggesting fear of impregnation by foreign invaders. A different explanation is that menstrual peaks also bring out strong emotions, which lets latent racism come to the fore.

The male warrior hypothesis makes many predictions that don't pan out. There is no evidence that men prefer foreign women--the Western ideal is Barbie--and women often like effeminate men: David Bowie would not be sexier with an enormous beard. On the male warrior hypothesis, women should fear foreigners as much as men do, because foreign men are hardwired to attack them, but women are actually more sympathetic to foreigners. This may stem from their firsthand knowledge of discrimination. Women are also more cooperative than men, which makes little sense if men are innate coalition builders.

There are dubious presuppositions as well. The warrior hypothesis assumes there was constant warfare in our evolutionary past, but some anthropologists argue that ancestral populations were too sparse for frequent contact. It also presupposes that warfare increases male fertility, when it may actually reduce fertility for all. Fertility is probably maximized when men are non-violent and share in childcare, but in many societies men beat their wives, neglect their children, and practice sex-selective infanticide against girls. The authors perpetuate the myth that evolution prefers men to be polygamous and females to be monogamous, but we see every variation in other species. In chimpanzees, both sexes seek multiple partners.

Social history explains such facts by proposing that men have taken power by their greater strength, leading to violent competition and the abuse of women. This approach correctly predicts cross-cultural variation in gender differences. As women gain economic power, they cease being treated as male property, age differences between romantic partners shrink, and violence against women diminishes. On the flipside, women who gain power, like Margaret Thatcher and Condaleeza Rice, are often hawkish, suggesting that power, not gender, determines belligerence. Women in the judiciary dole out harsher penalties than men. And woman are committing more acts of domestic violence that previously recorded.

To reduce male violence, it is not sufficient to reform men, as the defenders of the male warrior hypothesis recommend. Nor will it suffice to empower women. This will reduce domestic violence, but not war, because women can be as aggressive as men. Warfare did not decline precipitously with women's suffrage, and during recent conflicts with Russia, 43 percent of Chechen suicide bombers have been women. Crucially, we must reduce the incentives for violence. In a recent book, Steven Pinker documents a radical reduction in violence with the rise of democracy and global trade, a comforting confirmation that social factors matter (for two reviews see here and here). I think Pinker's optimism may be overstated: global trade has done less to remedy the poverty that devastates lives of people outside the economic partnerships between wealthy nations; healthy trading relationships can lead one nation to overlook the human rights abuses in another; and there have also been dozens of attempts at genocide since the Second World War. In fact, Pinker too eagerly accepts the myth of the ignoble savage: the idea that humans are violent by nature. But his book does contain a crucial insight. He shows that patterns of violence can be dramatically altered by historical forces. Attitues towards slavery, torture, and honor killing change over time, and this should make us realize that the biological contributions to violence may be greatly outweighed by the sociological.

Violence is a complex problem, which no simple biological approach can diagnose or remedy. Factors such as political instability, population density, and income inequality are associated with massive differences in violence across cultures, and these differences are observed while gender ratios remain constant. Of course, men still hold most of the power in the world, and it is no surprise, then, that they perpetrate most of the violence. But that too is a historical fact, not a biological given. If we focus on biology instead of economic and historical variables, we will miss out on opportunities for progress.

If being raised by single mothers were the reason, then why are most, murderers serial killers male? There are lots of women who were raised by single mothers and they dont grow up to be a fucked up murderer.

Your entire argument amounts to shit on a sidewalk when you realize the fact that there are little to no serial killings happening in this modern era. They occur once every blue moon vs. the 100's of millions of men a day that DON'T commit serial killings, and your dumb fucking ass is acting like this shit happens 7 days a week in every state.

Like everything else, a multitude of factors play into men becoming mass murderers. It doesn't have to do with them being MEN you stupid piece of garbage.

Some shit that plays into it: More pressure on men to provide and live up to expectations vs. leniency, societal and systemic comfort for women, a plethora of safety nets and shelters for women. Systemic disadvantage for men in divorce court that cause them to go crazy or commit suicide. Dating power in the hands of women, thus women can get laid any time they want, but do not since they have privilege to be more selective with who they choose. Men more often than not remain single and frustrated. Men have to be a provider to have a relationship, have to have repressed emotions, never complain when suffering and has to be willing to sacrifice as disposable to be a "admirable gender role". Women just have to be pretty to find a mate, or they can have a career, or all of the above because they have a vag. Think that's clear enough, you cunt.

Yeah, you are NOT expressing anger, an extreme violent mindset and lack of emotional control with your comments, Anonymous. Nope, not at all.
That is the problem with male violence. It starts with the language.

By the way: no one said serial killings happen 7 days a week. Just the truth: that most serial killers are men. Most killers are men, period.

And for the rest… that has nothing to do with what is being said.
Not to mention that you are saying nonsense as well, like "dating power in the hands of women", as if women could force men to date them and men could not say no, saying that men "more often than not" (!) remain single, even though most men get to find a relationship at least once in their lifetime, just like women, or that "men have to provide to have a relationship" even though most women not only work but also don't depend financially anymore, or that "being pretty" to a woman is just an eeeasy thing to accomplish, and that "women can have a career" because they have vaginas (what).
For real, dude. Get a clue, get some sense, go seek therapy. Your anger isn't pretty.
Maybe you should go see that emotional/intellectual dyslexia as well.

You're just bitter and twisted because you believe you are entitled to any woman you want. When you men spend money on women, or even just do a favour such as helping a female work colleague out with a work related issue, you are only doing it because you hope that this woman will give you sex.You think if you continue helping her and doing favours for her she will eventually have sex with you. When you men realise that doing favours for women, or buying gifts for them won't win you sex, you react to this rejection with the maturity of a child being denied a toy. Your reaction extends to taking this rejection out on all women in society. So it becomes a woman's fault, because they naturally have a want for sex just like men have. You are not mad that women have sex. You are mad that women are distributing to other people the sex that you think they owe you. By women exercising their own choices, they are denying the sex you men believe you are entitled to. This is why you are so bitter. Women "just have to be pretty to find a mate" and "have a vag" because that is all that matters to you men. You created this issue you have by bring driven by sex. As long as you get your dick wet nothing else matters. The problem here is the mentality of the the male mind who can't see beyond sex. Every aspect of your lives is centred around sex. It's not all about sex. If you men weren't so sexually driven then you will find it easier to obtain a relationship.You need to change your mindset and stop believing you are entitled to any pretty woman you want. Men don't have to be a provider to get in a relationship. They just have to have respect for women. Women can provide for themselves, but that makes you bitter too as you lose your sense of power and control over them. Women are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You sound like a whining baby who hasn't got it's own way. Grow up

Hmm... why are these women single mothers? Where is the man? Think through your argument first. This is obviously an argument that can keep going back-and-forth. Pathetic that you do not understand that.

So your blaming single mothers for the violence males commit? I guess if a man commits a crime we should arrest his mother then? Gotta love that LOGIC! Also, wheres your piles of evidence for this assertion (cherry-picking one study will result in a logical fallacy...just FYI)

I find it astounding such simplistic articles are published in a magazine like Psychology Today. A partial opinion that does not even acknowledge the reality that male aggression is the rule in every other species on earth. Do you think humans are, but for for some "historical" reason the exception?

Evolution is a part of history, you moron. Are you a geneticist? Do you actually have any background to be talking on this subject or are you just verbally spewing your biased diarrhea on men's supposed innate violent nature?

The KKK had the same mindset, they developed this thing called race realism where instead of calling them "dumb, violent niggers", they attempt attributing the violence a small number commit to the entire gender's innate being.

Maybe when you can get a half-assed understanding of the basic idea of what aggression is without attributing negative value to it by default, once you can get a clear grasp of why it is useful in the animal kingdom, come back and try talking with adults.

You obviously haven't had a proper fuck if you have to call it "male aggression", as if "female aggression" never existed. Stupid bitch.

I never said female aggression didn't exist. But you also prove my point. Nasty asshole you are so obviously male.
And in some instances, as you so aptly demonstrate evolution has been retrograde. Most animals are kinder than you.

Typical man-hating Feminist trash. Are you sure it's because I'm male that aggression is expected? Or is it cause I'm not constrained by the female gender role which entails being obsessed with your reputation, not offending people, generally being a chickenshit??

I've met plenty of women who are just as angry as I am at people who are pig shit ignorant like yourself.

"Or is it cause I'm not constrained by the female gender role which entails being obsessed with your reputation, not offending people, generally being a chickenshit??"

Oh noez, a dude who is obssessed with hating feminism/feminists! You guys are hilarious.

It's actually called being a civilized, educated, "in control of your emotions" person. You could try it, many men from developed Countries act like grown up adults just like that - being a decent human being and not a degenerate is part of their "male gender role".
And dude, anger is not the issue. It's how you express it and how you let it take control of yourself. How you let it be your ruler and actully use it to try to "destroy" other people, even though it mostly only destroys your own image.

And talking about image and reputation... males are, at elast, as much as into it than females. Probably more, as there is too much "no homo", "no I'm not feminine at alll" and other types of nonsense like that among your culture.

Women tend to be far more passive aggressive than men who are more overtly aggressive.

This also applies in sexual encounters where women indicate interest in ways that provoke men into approaching them and being overt in his intention while giving the woman deniability and the option to deny her interest should she change her mind.

These are distinct gender differences that do have exceptions but rarely.

"You obviously haven't had a proper fuck if you have to call it "male aggression", as if "female aggression" never existed. Stupid bitch."

Dude. Look at what you're doing.
You have a twisted mindset. You are uneducated, angry, not civilized and still want to tell other people to "come to talk with adults", as if you were acting like one. It's THAT type of degeneracy that we should not be tolerating anymore from you, macho male individuals, you just help to keep society in chaos, you guys are destroyers.
You just get aggressive and use offensive words (and sexist/misogynist language) just because you sense someone else with a different opinion (or not) as an "enemy". That is violence turned into words, that is words/internet war. You have no morals to speak about someone else's behavior or opinions, as yours is already all too poor.
And oh, of course you had to bring sex (no, "fuck") to the conversation! And of course you had to bring "female aggression" and believe in your own mind that people don't know that also exists... and feel oh so hurt that people aren't talking about that even though the FOCUS isn't on female aggression.

You are a straight American male, right? Most of the hysterical males with absolute no emotional control or decency we encounter on the internet being sexists/misogynists, homophobic and/or racists, using prejudiced slurs, many many "bad words", displaying intellectual dyslexia (one says "most violence is committed by men" and you reply "no, NOT ALL MEN ARE VIOLENT" as if that's what was said), being just plain rude, uneducated and uncivilized… and that still can speak English with no "weirdness"… are straight American dudes.
Most of the ones who do the same but with "weird English" are Indians. But at least they come from a third world country.

Where to start, where to start....clearly, women who disagree with you are either "cunts" or "bitches." Agree that you have a pretty serious anger problem towards women. You appear to really, really hate us, making you---you guessed it---a textbook misogynist. Never could understand what it is about us guys like you hate so much, so strongly, and with such violence of prose. You sound an inch away from picking up an assault rifle and hosing down a bunch of women then blowing your own brains out. Seriously. That's what you sound like. I have a suggestion. Stop hanging out in reddit on those MRA threads. They are poisoning your brain with their hatred for all womankind. Take a deep breath. We are not the enemy, much as you appear to think we are. We are just women who want to live in the world and do our thing, and not be raped and murdered by men. Not too much to ask, sounds to me.

Not " every other" species, actually. But most of them, yes. The type of violence/agression varies extremely from specie to specie, though.

Most female violence/aggression is because they feel threatened and they have to protect their young.
Many of the male violence/aggression goes to other members of their own group just fo the sake of trying to be "dominant", though.

Maleness is not equated to violent aggression in all species. Female birds of prey can be a third larger than their male counterparts, and are much more aggressive. A falconer I worked with has a saying: "If you want to sex an eagle, grasp it by the leg. If it cries and tries to fly away, it's a male. If it tries to swing itself up to attack your face, it's a female."

In the parrots, the female eclectus and female hawk headed parrot are quite a bit more violent than the males.

There are jicanas, the "lily trotter" marsh birds. In this group, females are again larger. In some species a female bird controls a harem of subservient male birds and fights viciously with other females.

I also put little stock in trusting a female cassowary to be less likely to disembowel me than a male.

So, no, there is nothing so special in nature about maleness and agression that there is a universal rule. And I only bring up a few birds, nature is full of other counter-examples.

But we are not birds. We are humans.The difference is humans have the brain capacity for thought and reasoning. Therefore, using facts about other species doesn't validate your argument or justifies the violent behaviour of men. You make out that senseless and sadistic acts of violence
is a natural and part of human biology. It is mostly men who carry out these senseless sadistic acts of violence. We have to accept this fact. Using examples of other species is pointless.Violence is a choice. I am a man, and I choose not to be violent. I choose not to sign up for the military. I don't feel the need to have power and control over women. I don't feel the need to force sex onto women, I don't feel the need to beat someone to death, I am not driven by sex. The latter here is a major factor in the reason why men are more violent and destructive than women. Depravity is mostly home to the male gender as men are more sexually driven. Sex rules every aspect of the lives of most men. It's pathetic. Sex is about partnership. It is sacred. It is about two people sharing an intimate moments equally. It is sharing of sexual pleasure which reduces the need for violence. If i can think this way then other men can. Men need to get this in their head and stop treating sex as a conquest. In sex there is power and dominance for most men. This is how they have been conditioned socially. Of course men who have allowed themselves to be conditioned in this way don't have a good level if intelligence. It is not difficult to snap out of it. I want a peaceful world where there is no senseless sadistic violence. We have no chance of achieving this of men don't change their attitudes towards sex and continue to use sex as a conquest.

It seems to me more and more that to "be woke," one must truly distance oneself from so much in the modern world. The pressures placed on women are tremendous--be white, thin, young, stacked, submissive, DTF but not a 'ho, perfect physically in every way but also have a FT job/"perfect" marriage/"perfect" kids/do all or most of the household work [but never nag!!!]. The pressures on men are likewise ludicrous--be emotionless, distant like you don't ever care, have sex with as many hot women as possible but never fall in love or even give a shit about them, "bro's before 'ho's", be strong always, and if you do all these things, the world is your oyster.

I have come to realize that these toxic myths stunt our potential as human beings. What these gender norms do is fragment us. We become two kinds of human beings, with the men on one side and the women on the other. Men can't have emotions--that's female [ie, weak]. Women can't be strong--that's male [ie makes a woman a dyke and castrates men]. I call bullshit. We should all strive to be whole human beings, not fragmented ghosts in a shell. Many of the comments in this thread simply serve to make the angry more angry and more polarized, namely men, because they perceive "women's side" of humanity to be privileged in comparison to their own. I suspect this is because they are bitter that they have cut themselves off from anything "female" in their own psyche. The anger they feel directly correlates to how much inner work they need to do.

Goddamn, you're fuckin' stupid. "Men are psychopaths if they call *women* cunts and bitches", as if your special snowflake ass doesn't deserve to be called a cunt and a bitch. Then in the very same fucking paragraph you call a man a prick. Your IQ is too low.

"Stupid ass sexually repressed man-hating dumb fucking cunts. Violent men consist of a small minority of men, stop capitalizing MEN like you have some fucking point you dunce bitch."

Dude, hahahaha!
"Sexually repressed", as if it was offensive or something lol. "Man-hating" just for saying the obvious: men are usually more violent than women. And oh, that means "all men" in your dyslexic mind. That is hilarious!
Dude, when we talk about how you guys can only use prejudiced slurs and "bad words" and things like that, it's NOT because it necessarily "hurts" us, it's just because it's pathetic, doesn't improve your argument (in fact, it only proves you deserve being ignored by everyone). Like, it just means nothing, it's empty, it's juvenile. So don't keep believing that you acting like a degenerate fool will hurt or make anyone scared, it won't. So there's no reason to keep being silly.
We all could be calling you an eunuch who will die with a swollen prostate, which won't change much as you are impotent anyways, and that women won't even be able to fake orgasms with you as even faking would not be possible if you are in front of such ugly, fat, flabby and hairy worthless male with such an ugly, weirdly colored penis, but hey, that is just too childish. Decent people still still have higher standards and allow themselves to act like an angry male troglodyte like that.

Violence can also take the form of words. Words hurt. They harm. They create fear. To call women "dumb fucking cunts" is a form of violence. Violent words become violent acts. You, sir, are a violent man. Violence in men often occurs because they feel vulnerable, or shamed in some way. I encourage you to be strong enough to face your own vulnerability and grow from it.

Really, that was a devastating bloggeriffic smack-down of almost epic awesomeness. You must be doin' the touchdown endzone dance ever since posting it.

"Prehistoric women, say [anthropologists] Moir and Jessel, with shorter lifespans and more pregnancies than modern women, could expect 10 menstruations in her life. Modern women can expect 400! We have to put up with forty times more shit from our women than biology ever intended, and they expect us to believe that we are the problem."
- Rich Zubaty

That quote doesn't make sense... so menstruation is "the problem". I bet he meant "we" as "we, men". But menstruation is only a problem for females.
PMS varies from women to women, some women just don't have it and no, it's not the cause for men - or women - going out and being violent to people, both women and other men.
In fact, women are the ones who suffer from PMS and STILL don't commit as much crimes.

Research suggests that women sometimes like masculine faces and sometimes more feminine faces. For example, in this study linked here, when hair is not shown, over 50% of women show a preference for a more feminine male face: www.facelab.org/include/download?id=305